If you click the Portland City Council link in the article, you will find a map produced by the city. But, generally, the property is between Killingsworth Street and Columbia Boulevard, from about the 7100 block to the 7700 block.

"Portland officials did hire the Fair Housing Council to conduct audit tests in 2010. In 32 of 50 tests, blacks and Latinos were treated differently from whites, according to results released last year. Legislators demanded action, and the state Bureau of Labor and Industries investigated. Ultimately, the agency found that the testing was too flawed for use in going after landlords."

Metro didn't include the Oakridge project because its tally was completed before the project opened. Nonetheless, The Oregonian tracked it for this report.

Lake Oswego defined "affordable housing" as housing that costs no more than 30 percent of the gross income for households making no more than 80 percent of the regional median income. Generally, affordable housing means housing available to families making 80 percent of the median income or less.

At the time Lake Oswego completed its report, officials determined that housing for a family of four would not exceed $1,358 a month.

The city of Portland owns the 1900 Building, where costs exceed $30 a square foot. However, debt on the building will be paid off in several years, at which point the costs will drop by about half. I'd encourage you to click the link to the full audit, included in the story and posted here: http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=53777&a=395428 for more details.

Portland's mayoral and commissioner races are non-partisan, for starters. Candidates file for the May primary and can win outright -- but only if they garner 50 percent of the vote, plus 1. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, however, then the two candidates who received the two-highest totals move on to the November general election -- where the winner is crowned.

Respectfully, you're pointing to a Table that is contingent on previous questions, and includes an even smaller sample size, and the responses to Table 4 are not the responses The Oregonian highlighted earlier -- the questions are entirely different. And there's no 60 percent associated with Table 4, either.

I'm not here to debate you; only to report the news. You suggested that my reporting was wrong and it is not. I'm going to refrain from further back and forths.

I reviewed the link, but I did not find data to support your assertion that the article is wrong and that 60 percent of the residents in the survey are against the project. As I mentioned, the data used by The Oregonian comes directly from the survey itself, which we include as a link. And, specifically, it's from question 19.

You said the article is wrong, and that 60 percent of the residents in the survey are against it. I included a link to the survey in the story, and question 19 outlines that 156 of the respondents were not supportive. That's out of 300 people polled, or 52 percent.

Can you point me to your contention that the number is 60 percent? If the article is, in fact, incorrect I will fix the error. But I need you to explain where the 60 percent comes from.

The white population in the census tract has INCREASED since 2000 -- from 60.51 percent in 2000 to 69.16 percent in 2010. The white population in the surrounding three census tracts also has increased: (57.39 vs. 70.18 south of Killingsworth); (55.4 vs. 68.97 east of I-5); (30.49 vs. 51.99 east of I-5, south of Killingsworth).

On a related note, the Housing Bureau's analysis of impediments of fair housing, on "Unintended Gentrification Through Policies," says: "Urban Renewal Development and the limited uses of Tax Increment Funds (TIF) have the unintended consequence of residential displacement and residents being 'priced out' of market-rate housing. This disproportionately affects people of color, those with disabilities, and low-income families.

"A number of strategies can be deployed to counteract the rise of rents that may create gentrification, including prioritizing TIF developments to ensure that existing residents in a gentrification-vulnerable area can choose to stay in their homes by preserving existing affordable rentals and funding home repair and energy efficiency improvements for existing low-income families. TIF can also be used to create new rental and mixed income developments that increase the housing options for low income residents in 'improving' areas -- often those close to transit, job centers and other amenities."

The article includes and draws attention to the "buy down" link from. Section 6.1.1.1. Here's the Section, from July 2008, in full:

"6.1.1.1 Real Estate Loan. PDC will make available to Developer the Real Estate Loan
to construct the Project in an amount not to exceed THREE MILLION FOUR
HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND
EIGHTY DOLLARS ($3,484,280.00), the terms and conditions of which shall
be consistent with PDC’s Housing Development Subordinate Loan program with
the exception of a portion not to exceed $223,101 (the “Capitalized Interest
Construction Loan”) which usage shall be contingent on slower than expected
absorption levels of unit sales the terms and conditions of which shall be set forth
in the Real Estate Loan Documents. In the event that the Capitalized Interest
Construction Loan is utilized, it shall be converted into a grant and not subject to
repayment consistent with the Real Estate Documents. A portion of the Real
Estate Loan not to exceed $1,043,639 (the “Housing Affordability Assistance”)
will be used to buy-down the cost of 33 units in the Project to meet the
Affordable Housing Requirements set forth in Section 7.4 (the “Affordable
Housing Units”). The Housing Affordability Assistance shall, upon the closing
of the Affordable Housing Units, be converted into a second mortgage for
qualified and eligible buyers of the Affordable Housing Units on terms and
conditions consistent with PDC’s Secondary Assistance Loan program. The
Housing Affordability Assistance, having first been used for the construction of
the Project shall be deemed to have met the construction related requirements of
the Secondary Assistance Loan program."

As part of the third amendment to the DDA, from October 2010, that section was deleted. From the agreement:

"Section 6.1.1.1 of the DDA is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
“Real Estate Loan. PDC will make available to Developer the Real Estate Loan to construct the Project in an amount not to exceed FIVE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND SIX DOLLARS ($5,826,306), the terms and conditions of which shall be consistent with the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit N attached hereto.” Exhibit N is attached hereto as Attachment C"

So, to be clear, the loan amount increased by more than $2 million. And the provision about using a portion of the loan to buy down the property was removed. Exhibit N lists the terms and conditions. Here they are:

At the same time, the issue of Down Payment Assistance Loans is added for the first time into the contract.

"A new Section 6.1.1.3 is added as follows:
“Housing Affordability Assistance. Developer, as a condition precedent of the Real Estate Loan, shall provide PDC with documentation, satisfactory to PDC, that is has received from the Portland Housing Bureau (“PHB”), a binding commitment that PHB will (i) make an amount not to exceed EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FOUR DOLLARS ($848,734) (“Housing Affordability Assistance”) available to qualified and eligible buyers of the thirty-four (34) units in the Project to meet the Affordable Housing Requirements set forth in Section 7.4 (the “Affordable Housing Units”); and (ii) make the Single-Unit New Construction Limited Tax Exemption program administered by PHB available for the Project. The Housing Affordability Assistance shall have terms and conditions consistent with PHB’s Down Payment Assistance Loan program.”